’WPCĒ …# VU:a %› 0(”b É4Õén­ų„ w„ 0Jµ 0T’ 0^S 0h± 0r 0|‹ 0† 0 1u U,’ 0d¾ U,"U*NB)xDC” AMä1 BAv~^vÓÜ D3Æ 0@ā AO"Ęq 0D7 D/{ BŖ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTĄĢĄä䥥Ģ0†,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($””- ł -nnG xįāćäåęēčéźėģ3|x:«<ž6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxž6X@ÉDQX@0Ӏ:2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cž’ << G’’ Ż ƒ!ŻŃ  ŃŃ#€d#ŃŌ€ŌŌ€ ŌŻ  ŻŌ€ ŌÓ  Óņ ņŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€ XŌĢĢFebruary€7,€1996ĢĢCecil€W.€CrowsonĢAppellate€Court€ClerkŌ  Ōó ó dPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃMonacoŃŃ ŃŅ  BA: T Monaco ŅŅ  BA: T Monaco Ņ%%%%'’’dxd("’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  Ņ€-‚ƒCž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó„„'÷’ dxdü’P PdŻ ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€ŌÓ&€X„d&ÓŃ#€Xd#ŃŌ€ ŌŻ  ŻŅ € ŅŅ „ ŅŃ  ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŃ€ŃŃ7€'‰XXdędČ7ŃŃ  ŃŃ  ŃKAYLA€NICOLE€NUNLEY,ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąPlaintiff/Appellee,ą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ąAppeal€No.ĢVS.ą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ą01„A„01„9508„PB„00350Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ąĢESTATE€OF€BILLY€G.€NUNLEY,ą ąą ą)ą ąDavidson€ProbateĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ą ąNo.€89D„2305ĢŁ€€ŁßL€#$";+'h|tżŗ` ē `€€Lßą ąDefendant/Appellee,ą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģandą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)ĢEARL€MONTGOMERY,ą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą)Ģą ąDefendant/Appellant.ą ąą ą)ĢĢĢĢą@ ąCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEĢą@ ąMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEĢĢĢAPPEALED€FROM€THE€PROBATE€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYĢAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEĢĢTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€R.€EVERETT,€JR.,€JUDGEĢĢĢĢTHOMAS€H.€WAREĢWARE€&€CRAWFORDĢ1800€Parkway€TowersĢ404€James€Robertson€ParkwayĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ģą ąAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppelleeĢĢANN€BUNTIN€STEINERĢSTEINER€&€STEINERĢ214€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€203ĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37201„1644Ģą ąAttorney€for€Defendant/AppelleeĢĢDAN€R.€ALEXANDERĢ2016€8th€Avenue€SouthĢNashville,€Tennessee€€37204Ģą ąAttorney€for€Defendant/AppellantĢĢĢĢą@ ąAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDĢĢĢĢą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEĢĢCONCUR:ĢLEWIS,€J.ĢKOCH,€J.ĢĢÓ  ÓÓÓą@ ąņ ņņņŌ€ „ŌO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóŌ€ XŌĢĢą ąą ąThis€case€involves€the€ownership€of€the€mechanical€royalty€rights€toĻa€catalogue€of€songs€written€by€the€appellant,€Earl€Montgomery.€€The€appellee,ĻKayla€Nicole€Nunley,€contends€that€her€late€husband,€Billy€Gene€Nunley,Ļpurchased€the€right€to€collect€those€royalties€from€Mr.€Montgomery€in€1975.€€Mr.ĻMontgomery€testified€that€he€never€sold€the€rights,€and€that€he€did€not€even€knowĻMr.€Nunley.€€He€claims€that€the€Nunleys€were€guilty€of€converting€the€fundsĻderived€from€his€ownership€rights.ĢĢą ąą ąThe€proof€shows€that€the€Nunleys€received€royalty€checks€from€Mr.ĻMontgomery's€publisher€and€its€successors€for€almost€20€years,€and€that€Mr.ĻMontgomery€did€not€receive€any€mechanical€royalties€after€the€rights€wereĶpurportedly€sold€to€Mr.€Nunley.€€Mr.€Montgomery€admitted€that€he€was€aware€thatĻhe€had€stopped€receiving€checks€sometime€in€the€mid„1970s,€but€claimed€that€heĻwas€unable€to€discover€the€reason.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Mr.€Montgomery'sĻclaim€for€conversion€was€precluded€by€laches.€€We€also€find€that€Mr.€MontgomeryĻfailed€to€prove€his€right€for€the€royalties,€and,€therefore,€affirm€the€lower€court'sĻdecision.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņI.ó ó€€ĢĢą ąą ąThough€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Montgomery€is€diametrically€opposed€toĻthat€of€Mrs.€Nunley€and€two€other€witnesses,€there€is€no€dispute€about€the€natureĻand€origin€of€the€rights€at€issue.€€Between€1970€and€1975,€songwriter€EarlĻMontgomery€worked€under€an€exclusive€five€year€contract€with€AlTam€MusicĻPublishing€Company.€AlTam€was€owned€by€Al€Gallico€and€Tammy€Wynette,€andĻthe€company€name€was€created€by€combining€their€first€names.€€Mr.€MontgomeryĻwrote€numerous€songs€during€his€period€of€employment€with€AlTam.€€TheĻpublisher€paid€him€monthly€advances€of€$1,000€against€the€royalties€he€wasĻexpected€to€receive€from€the€sale€of€records€and€tapes€containing€his€songs.ĢĢą ąą ąSuch€royalties€are€called€mechanical€royalties.€€They€are€generallyĻhandled€by€an€agency€that€specializes€in€collecting€them€from€record€companies.€ĻThe€royalties€are€forwarded€by€the€agency€to€the€publisher€every€six€months.€€TheĶpublisher€then€distributes€the€writer's€share€to€him.€€The€contract€between€AlTamĻand€Mr.€Montgomery€provided€that€the€mechanical€royalties€would€be€dividedĻequally€between€the€publisher€and€the€songwriter,€with€adjustments€for€the€moneyĻadvanced.ĢĢą ąą ąMr.€Montgomery€also€received€(and€still€receives)€performanceĻroyalties,€which€accumulate€when€a€writer's€songs€are€played€on€the€radio,€usedĻin€movies€or€television,€or€performed€in€live€concerts.€€Performance€royalties€areĻpaid€directly€to€the€writer€by€the€licensing€agency€he€contracts€with.€€Mr.ĻMontgomery's€licensing€agent€is€Broadcast€Music€Incorporated€(BMI).€BMI€sendsĻa€performance€royalty€check€to€Mr.€Montgomery€every€three€months.€ĢĢą@ ąņ ņII.ó óĢĢą ąą ąAlsey€"Shugg"€Baggett,€former€manager€of€George€Jones,€and€aĻfriend€and€associate€of€Earl€Montgomery,€testified€that€around€1975€Mr.ĻMontgomery€told€him€that€he€needed€money,€and€that€Mr.€Baggett€put€him€inĻtouch€with€Bill€Nunley,€an€investor€who€was€not€particularly€involved€in€the€musicĻbusiness.€€Mr.€Nunley€receiving€assurances€from€Mr.€Baggett€that€the€deal€was€aĻgood€one,€and€allegedly€agreed€to€pay€Mr.€Montgomery€$10,000€for€theĻmechanical€rights€to€his€songs€in€the€AlTam€catalog.€€Mr.€Nunley's€cash€was€tiedĻup€with€a€car€dealership,€so€he€decided€to€borrow€the€money€to€pay€for€the€rights.ĢĢą ąą ąMr.€Nunley,€Mr.€Montgomery,€and€Mr.€Baggett€met€a€banker€namedĻClarence€Reynolds€at€the€Commerce€Union€Bank€and€Mr.€Nunley€borrowedĻ$10,000€on€his€personal€note.€€Mr.€Montgomery€admitted€that€he€was€present€at€aĻmeeting€with€€Clarence€Reynolds€and€some€other€individuals€at€around€that€sameĻtime,€but€he€insisted€the€meeting€had€a€different€purpose,€and€he€denied€that€heĻknew€at€the€time€who€Mr.€Nunley€was.ĢĢą ąą ąA€few€months€later,€Emmy€Lou€Harris€recorded€"One€of€These€Days,"Ļone€of€Mr.€Montgomery's€songs€from€the€catalog.€€It€became€a€huge€hit,€and€Mr.ĻNunley€recouped€his€investment€and€was€able€to€pay€off€the€note€in€very€shortĻorder.€He€subsequently€moved€to€Arizona€and€continued€to€receive€royaltyĻchecks.€€Copies€of€three€of€those€checks,€drawn€on€AlTam's€account,€made€out€toĻMr.€Nunley€as€payee,€and€each€containing€a€notation€that€it€was€for€royalties,€haveĻbeen€made€exhibits€to€the€record€in€this€case.Ģ€€Ģą ąą ąBecause€of€personal€frictions,€AlTam€chose€not€to€renew€Mr.ĻMontgomery's€contract.€€Paul€Ritchie,€a€publisher€for€whom€Mr.€MontgomeryĻsubsequently€worked,€testified€that€in€1983€or€1984,€he€and€Mr.€MontgomeryĻdiscussed€the€songwriter's€desire€to€have€the€rights€to€the€songs€he€had€writtenĻfor€AlTam€restored€to€him.€€Mr.€Ritchie€was€going€to€Phoenix€on€other€business,Ļand€he€agreed€to€approach€Mr.€Nunley€about€selling€the€rights€back€to€Mr.ĶMontgomery.€€Mr.€Nunley€was€not€interested€in€the€proposal,€and€he€informed€Mr.ĻRitchie€that€in€any€case€he€no€longer€had€exclusive€rights€to€the€proceeds€of€theĻAlTam€catalog,€as€he€and€Mrs.€Nunley€had€divorced€in€1983,€and€one„half€of€theĻrights€had€been€transferred€to€her€in€the€divorce€decree.€€€ĢĢą ąą ąSubsequent€events€have€complicated€the€task€of€proving€orĻdisproving€the€sale€of€the€mechanical€royalties.€€In€1989,€Mr.€Nunley€wasĻdiagnosed€with€brain€cancer,€and€had€to€undergo€surgery,€which€left€himĻconsiderably€weakened.€€Also€in€1989,€Mr.€Nunley's€home€was€completelyĻdestroyed€by€a€fire€which€consumed€all€his€financial€records.€€The€appellees€wereĻunable€to€produce€a€copy€of€the€contract€of€sale€at€trial,€purportedly€because€ofĻthe€fire.€ĢĢą ąą ąMr.€Nunley€and€his€ex„wife€moved€back€to€Tennessee,€and€theirĻMaricopa€County€divorce€decree€was€domesticated€in€Davidson€County.€€Mr.ĻNunley's€short„term€memory€was€impaired€by€his€condition€and€its€treatment,€andĻhe€failed€to€send€Kayla€Nunley€her€share€of€the€royalties.€€She€filed€a€contemptĻpetition€that€resulted€in€an€agreed€order€that€in€the€future,€her€share€of€the€AlTamĻroyalties€would€be€paid€directly€to€her€by€the€publisher,€rather€than€beingĻdisbursed€by€Mr.€Nunley.ĢĢą ąą ąHowever€the€agreed€order€did€not€solve€Mrs.€Nunley's€paymentĻproblems.€€The€principals€in€Altam€sold€the€company.€€The€purchaser€was€Coca„Cola,€which€only€held€the€property€a€short€time€before€selling€it€to€MCA.€€A€checkĻfrom€MCA€did€come€into€Mrs.€Nunley's€possession,€but€the€check,€for€$3,423.07,Ļwas€made€out€to€Earl€Montgomery€c/o€Billy€Nunley.€€Mrs.€Nunley€called€EarlĻMontgomery,€and€spoke€to€his€wife€Charlene,€seeking€some€guidance€onĻhandling€the€check.€€The€significance€of€this€phone€call€is€that€Earl€MontgomeryĻsubsequently€claimed€that€it€provided€him€with€the€first€clue€as€to€where€his€royaltyĻchecks€had€been€going€for€so€many€years.€ĢĢą ąą ąMrs.€Nunley€became€convinced€that€her€former€husband€and€Mr.ĻMontgomery€were€conspiring€to€deprive€her€of€her€rightful€share€of€the€royalties.€ĻShe€accordingly€filed€a€second€contempt€petition,€naming€both€of€them,€andĻasking€for€an€accounting€of€all€royalties,€and€for€payment€of€her€share.€€Mr.ĻMontgomery's€answer€contained€a€cross„claim€against€Mr.€Nunley,€and€a€counter„claim€against€Mrs.€Nunley.€Mr.€Montgomery€contended€that€he€had€neverĻsurrendered€his€royalty€rights.€€He€charged€the€Nunleys€with€conversion,€andĻasked€for€an€accounting,€and€for€judgment€against€the€Nunleys€for€sums€received.ĢĢą ąą ąDuring€trial,€Paul€Ritchie€testified€that€several€months€earlier,€Mr.ĻMontgomery€told€him€that€he€had€learned€that€the€Nunleys€had€lost€the€purchaseĻagreement,€and€that€he€had€decided€to€deny€that€the€sale€ever€happened.€€WhenĶMr.€Montgomery€was€on€the€stand,€he€denied€having€any€business€connectionĻwith€Mr.€Nunley,€and€denied€that€he€had€ever€sold€the€mechanical€rights€toĻanyone.€€Under€direct€questioning,€he€was€asked€what€steps€he€had€taken€toĻdiscover€what€had€happened€to€the€royalty€checks€he€allegedly€expected€toĻreceive:€€€€ĢĢŅ 0 ŅŅ  ŅÓÓą ąQ.ą ąNow,€Mr.€Montgomery,€when€the€time€cameĻthat€you€stopped€receiving€these€mechanical€royalties,Ļwhat,€if€anything,€did€you€do€to€try€to€find€out€what€wasĻhappening€to€your€royalties?ĢĢą ąA.ą ąWe€tried€to€make€contact€with€Mr.€Gallico€...Ļņņ(some€colloquy€between€the€attorneys€followed,€and€thenĻMr.€Montgomery€resumed)óó.€.€.€€Okay.€€I€tried€to€contractĻMr.Gallico€on€several€occasions.€€And€I€was€also€in€hisĻpresence€in€Los€Angeles€at€the€Pop€Awards€one€night,Ļand€I€tried€to€confront€him€about€it,€which€was€not€a€properĻplace,€with€Barry€Manilow€and€people€at€the€table€thatĻnight,€and€so€he€said€we'd€talk€about€it€later.€€But€manyĻtimes€I€tried€to€call€and€he€would€be€out€or€I€couldn't€get€toĻhim€or€he'd€be€in€L.A.€or€New€York.ĢŅ € ŅŅ „ ŅĢą@ ąĢą@ ąņ ņIII.ó óĢĢĢÓÓą ąą ąThe€elements€of€the€appellant's€argument€may€be€summarized€asĻfollows:€€It€is€undisputed€that€he€is€the€author€of€the€songs€in€question,€and€that€heĻpossessed€the€mechanical€rights€to€them€when€he€was€under€contract€to€AlTam;Ļthe€appellees€cannot€produce€a€written€contract€showing€that€he€transferred€thoseĻrights;€and€the€Statute€of€Frauds€contained€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€47„1„206Ķrequires€a€writing€indicating€a€contract€between€the€parties€before€a€court€canĻenforce€a€sale€of€this€kind€of€property.ĢĢą ąą ąHowever,€the€trial€court€explicitly€found€that€the€royalty€rights€inĻquestion€were€vested€in€the€Nunleys,€thus€impliedly€finding€that€a€valid€contractĻexisted,€even€though€the€appellees€could€not€produce€a€copy€of€it€in€court.€€In€theĻlight€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€in€the€record,€as€to€the€assignment€of€theĻroyalty€rights,€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Ritchie€concerning€his€mission€in€Phoenix€andĻhis€conversations€with€Mr.€Montgomery,€and€Mr.€Nunley's€affidavit€as€to€theĻdestruction€of€his€papers€in€the€house€fire,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidenceĻpreponderates€against€the€trial€court's€finding.€€The€trial€court€was€justified€inĻfinding€that€Mr.€Montgomery's€testimony€that€he€did€not€sell€his€royalty€rights€to€Mr.ĻNunley€was€not€worthy€of€belief.ĢĢą ąą ąWe€note€also€that€in€the€present€posture€of€the€case,€the€appelleesĻare€not€asking€the€court€to€enforce€the€contract.€€Instead,€the€appellant€is€askingĻthe€court€to€find€that€the€appellees€converted€his€property.€€Though€the€nature€ofĻthe€appellant's€claim€places€the€burden€on€him€to€prove€the€alleged€conversion,Ļhe€attempts€to€shift€the€burden€to€the€Nunleys€by€asserting€that€they€must€proveĻthe€existence€of€a€contract€transferring€the€royalty€rights€at€issue€in€order€toĻprevail.€€We€do€not€believe€they€are€required€to€assume€that€burden.ĢĢą ąą ąAs€to€the€Statute€of€Frauds€argument,€the€contract€is€no€longerĻexecutory;€it€was€fully€performed€twenty€years€ago.€€The€evidence€isĻoverwhelming€that€Mr.€Montgomery€assigned€his€royalty€rights€pursuant€to€theĻagreement.€€"If€an€oral€contract,€otherwise€within€the€statute€is€completelyĻexecuted€or€performed,€it€is€taken€out€of€the€operation€of€that€statute."€€73€Am.€Jur.Ļ2d€ņņStatute€of€Fraudsó󀚚€527.ĢĢą@ ąņ ņIV.ó óĢĢą ąą ąEven€if€the€Nunleys€had€converted€Mr.€Montgomery's€property€(andĻwe€believe€the€facts€preponderate€otherwise),€Mr.€Montgomery€would€still€not€beĻentitled€to€prevail€on€his€claim,€as€the€proof€shows€him€to€have€been€been€guilty€ofĻunreasonable€delay€in€pursuing€his€rights.€€See€ņņHannewald€v.€FairfieldĻCommunitiesóó,€ņņInc.óó,€651€S.W.2d€222,€228€(Tenn.App.€1983).€€Such€delay€calls€theĻequitable€doctrine€of€laches€into€play€to€prevent€the€assertion€of€stale€claims.€€SeeĻņņParker€v.€Bethel€Hotel€Coóó.,€34€S.W.€209,€217,€96€Tenn.€252,€285€(1896).€ĢĢą ąą ąThe€proof€shows€that€Mr.€Nunley€collected€mechanical€royalties€forĻabout€seventeen€years€before€a€claim€was€asserted€against€his€right€to€do€so.€ĻThe€explanation€for€the€delay€given€by€Mr.€Montgomery,€that€he€was€unable€to€getĻin€touch€with€Mr.€Gallico€to€learn€to€whom€the€checks€were€being€sent,€does€notĻstrike€us€as€reasonable.€€There€are€no€allegations€that€Mr.€Gallico€went€out€ofĶbusiness€or€into€hiding,€but€merely€that€he€didn't€return€Mr.€Montgomery's€phoneĻcalls.€€Given€the€value€of€the€rights€at€issue,€and€their€importance€to€Mr.ĻMontgomery,€it€is€hard€to€believe€that€he€would€not€have€made€a€more€vigorousĻeffort€to€have€them€restored,€if€he€truly€believed€he€was€entitled€to€them.€ĢĢą ąą ąWe€note,€however,€that€delay€by€itself€is€not€sufficient€to€invoke€theĻdoctrine€of€laches.€€As€this€court€said€in€the€case€of€ņņBrister€v.€Brubaker's€Estate,Ļóó336€S.W.2d€326,€332,€47€Tenn.App.€150,€162€(1960),€"[T]he€determinative€test€asĻto€laches,€which€may€be€available€as€a€successful€defense,€is€not€the€length€ofĻtime€that€has€elapsed,€but€whether,€because€of€such€lapse€of€time,€the€partyĻrelying€on€laches€as€a€defense€has€been€prejudiced€by€the€delay."€€See€alsoĻņņParker€v.€Bethel€Hotelóó,€34€S.W.€at€217,€96€Tenn.€at€285.€ĢĢą ąą ąThe€facts€of€the€instant€case€present€almost€a€textbook€example€ofĻprejudice€induced€by€delay,€as€may€be€seen€by€the€following€passage:ĢĢŅ 0 ŅŅ  ŅÓÓņ ņšš170.€Prejudice€by€reason€of€defendant'sĻinability€to€defend:€unavailability€of€evidence.ó óĢĢą ąThe€prejudicial€situation€in€which€the€complainant'sĻsuit€places€the€defendant€may€be€occasioned€by€inabilityĻon€the€part€of€the€latter,€because€of€the€complainant'sĻdelay€in€asserting€his€claim,€to€produce€evidence€inĻdefense€thereof,€where€matters€of€proof€have€been€lost,Ļwitnesses€have€died,€and€the€transaction€giving€rise€to€theĻsuit€has€become€obscured€by€the€lapse€of€time.€ĶFurthermore,€relief€may€be€denied€where€it€appears€thatĻone€who€participated€in€the€disputed€transaction€has€diedĻor€has€suffered€impairment€of€memory€or€mental€facilities.€Ļ27€Am.€Jur.€2d€€ņņEquityó󀚚170€(1966).ĢĢŅ € ŅŅ „ ŅÓÓĢą ąą ąThe€consequences€of€delay€in€the€present€case€include€the€1989Ļdestruction€of€Mr.€Nunley's€records€which€made€it€difficult€to€establish€that€heĻlegitimately€acquired€the€rights€at€issue,€his€deteriorating€condition,€which€made€itĻimpossible€for€him€to€testify€in€court,€and€his€death€prior€to€the€filing€of€the€finalĻorder€in€this€case.€€It€would€be€difficult€to€find€a€clearer€example€of€prejudice€to€aĻdefendant,€arising€from€a€plaintiff's€delay€in€bringing€his€claim.€€€€€€ĢĢą@ ąņ ņV.ó óĢĢą ąą ąThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Remand€this€cause€to€theĻProbate€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisĻopinion.€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€the€appellant.€ĢĢÓÓą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą_____________________________Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢĢ_______________________________ĢSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEĢĢĢĢ_______________________________ĢWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEŃ  Ńą@ ą